I'd just get my camera...

I would dial emergency and let them decide.

HP, I agree with your reply although the question is not meant to be taken literally since dogs do swim and drowning humans do pose a threat to potential rescuers - all that aside, the basic question is just which life do you personally value more and would rather save, if you HAD to choose.

Fundamentally, I'd save a person because I value a person's life more than a dog or cat's. There are some strong evolutionary reasons why we favour our own. I would never kill a person or a dog against their will, but I still have a preference for people based entirely on the fact that the choice of which life is more valuable is a very subjective question. Not to mention the social repercussions! Imagine what the poor stranger's family would think of you if you chose your pet!

It's not just self-interest, though. There is a whole other layer of communication and understanding that comes from sharing complex languages. I know to a far greater certainty the desires and complexities of another human being compared with a cat.



This is what a lot of people believe, but that kind of drowning is very rare. I live on an island. We're trained to recognise drowning. It's usually very quiet, very hard to spot: http://mariovittone.com/2010/05/154/

Well, if that's the question - animal vs. human, with none of the practical considerations, I'd choose the human. I love animals, I have always had pets, but I do value human life above animal life, if only because the potential for a human to do good is so much greater than that of an animal, and as idealistic as it is, I believe humanity can be great if we as individuals choose to be.

If you want to remove the practical considerations, then perhaps it should be...

You awaken in a windowless, doorless room, with two chambers with windows so you can see in. In one chamber is a stranger - they are medium sized, in shapeless clothing, with a bag over their head - you can't tell if it's a man, woman, or large child. In another chamber is an animal - similarly covered, but you can tell it's an animal - maybe a dog, or a pig, or even a small pony. You notice two red buttons - one on each chamber. A voice over a loudspeaker says, "You have 60 seconds to press one button to release the gas. The chamber whose button you have pressed will fill with toxic gas, killing the occupant. If you do not choose, both chambers as well as this room will fill with toxic gas - both the animal and person will die, and you will die too. Choose."

(The coverings are simply to remove any personal prejudice against, I dunno, men or black people or pit bulls or whatever qualities the individual in the chamber might have that you, personally, might dislike.)

kiwi_tea - Most of the articles I found before I posted said pretty much the same thing though - if you're not trained in saving a drowning victim, you are likely to have real serious problems saving one if you get in the water with them. Even if they're not splashing and screaming, if they're still conscious when you get to them, they're probably still panicking and unless you are trained in dealing with someone like that -while swimming yourself-, you're putting yourself in a dangerous situation. Which was my main point - big enough human, too far out to drag to safety, conscious and capable of pulling me under, I ain't jumping in.

RE: Drowning, point taken.

Lt Ripley saved the cat in the end. Jus' sayin.

Yeah I suppose it would have been a less ambiguous way of phrasing the question (although a strange scenario nonetheless, hehe). However, you omitted a very important part of the scenario - it's not just "a dog" - it has to be "your dog" which makes the difference. The animal you love, have a bond with, have responsibility over vs. a random human being with whom you've no such connection. I'm assuming everyone would rather save a stranger than a random dog.

edit: as for the question, personally, it would be a horrible decision for me to make. I would probably opt for the person, although I'd be VERY disappointed if the person turned out to be a selfish intolerant jerk that the world would be better off without.

In this situation, I'd definitely save the human. I'd save the animal only if it's mine and if I love it very much.

I'd save the person, unless they were on the very short list of people I keep on my head of "people who need dying," even if it were some sort of beloved pet in there. I could live with myself if an animal died, but I don't see how anyone could live with themselves if they had an opportunity to save a human life and couldn't be bothered to do so.

definitely, i would save my cat instead.


pretty much the opposite of Mistermook, i cant see how anyone could live with themselves if they had an opportunity to save a beloved pets' life and couldnt be bothered to do so.

...for the sake of some stranger who has never once helped you endure whatever horrible circumstances youve been subjected to in life, no less.

but then you must keep in mind that if it werent for my cat, i would have successfully committed suicide some years ago. my cat was there when absolutely no humans were. i could never allow myself to do him any wrong.

^^ Me clickz da agry buttonz!

I'd want to try and save both, but in the drowning scenario I'd probably end up not being able to save either, and maybe die myself in the process. I can swim reasonably well, but I've never done any life-saving (well, since I was about 8 and we did one lesson in my 5 years of swimming lessons) and am only small (thin, really, not short) and not very strong. If the person was a smallish child (under 10ish) I may be able to save them. I'd certainly try!

In HP's scenario, I'd save the person. Even if I could see the animal and it was one that I cared about I would save the person. Because they're a person - in someone else's "test" it could be me or my Mum or one of my young cousins in there - I'd certainly hope that people would save me/them over an animal!

Without a doubt I would save my dog, who has given me so much love over the years, instead of a total stranger.
I couldn't live with myself if I would let her die, it wouldn't even register that there is a human in trouble, I would just have eyes for my dog.

In HP's scenario I would save the human if the animal isn't my pet, since it's covered up I can't tell what kind of animal it is, it might be something vicious... but then again..so could be the human.

I'd press both the buttons at the same time because it might cancel out! That, unless the chambers are too far apart to do so.

I consider all of the "I'd save the dog" responses part of the reason the human race is so fucked up. "Another human being? Fuck that, I'm going after my animal, because I like it." Seriously, that's incredibly selfish sounding and the callous disregard for human life actually sickens me.

What sort of person would any of you think someone else was if they found themselves in the situation and had an opportunity to rescue your loved ones, but chose to ignore them in favor of their animal?

I'd save the "loved one" but if it's a stranger, whom I don't know and he/she doesn't know me either, why would I save the stranger? It's preposterous!

Let's say my dog somehow can't swim.

If there are people around, what I'd probably do is I'd shout out so they'd come and help the drowning stranger and I'd rescue my dog myself. Because human life somehow has a tendency to be more valued by humans ourselves (whether it's a spoken fact or not) as compared to animal life (think keeping pets and being the masters, animal cruelty and poaching and whatnot). So in this case, where I know humans would likely try and save other humans, I'd go for my drowning dog, whose probability of being chosen to be saved is lower than that of a drowning human, from a third person's viewpoint. Everyone lives.

I mean, that's just the case where this doesn't happen in an isolated location.

If not, I'd go for the stranger, knowing he/she might have an entire family, whereas most probably the only connection my dog has with anyone is with, well, me. If anything, there'd be only one person to suffer from the loss of my dog, as opposed to quite a few if the stranger drowns.

This is what I wanted the debate to be about (and not the technicalities of a drowning scenario, my fault I guess for wording it the way I did *facepalm*).

Is it justified for someone to let someone's parent/sibling/spouse/child die in order to save their own animal? Is it justified to ignore your beloved animal when it needs you most in order to save a complete stranger just because he's the same species as you? There's arguments for both sides and that's what I was hoping people would debate/discuss.

I would definitely feel outraged if someone had a chance to save my loved one but didn't and decided to save a chihuahua instead. Although even the pet-savers would be outraged if the tables were turned like this.

Judging by the situation, as my dog has only me, I'd bite my lip and try and save the stranger instead. Not because he's the same species I am, but because the opportunity cost of not saving the stranger is potentially greater (family, company, heck even nation, if he's an elected official of sorts)

Humans have the same disregard for the lives of everything else on this planet. Now think about it, if humans -only- cared about other humans, do you think we would be very far in the world? Most of our current medicines would have never been discovered if somebody hadn't of taken the time to think about that plant before cutting it up for their cattle's food. No, the human race is so fucked up -because- we have no regard for anything but other human life.

Back on topic, no matter what, I would save my dog. I agree with SuicidiaParasidia on all points, in the fact that my dog would -always- have been there for me. If there were, however, a way in which I knew I could save both, I would do my best, or die trying.

We don't even have regard for other human life, how many people get murdered every day, why should I save a total stranger who could be anybody (good or evil) and let my beloved pet drown?

That is not one of the reasons the human race is fucked up, we are greedy bastards and just look out for number one because the human race is flawed, none of us are perfect.
If my response sickens you, that is totally fine by me but it doesn't change my mind, I would never let my pet intentionally die if I could save it ...let the stranger save himself, he got a brain, why is he in that situation in the first place, doesn't he know not to jump into the water if he can't swim.

My dog would die for me, I could not ignore her if she is in trouble.
Simple as that.

Sounds a bit like pot calling the kettle black

When I think about how I would feel if someone saved their pet instead of saving someone who was a stranger to them but important to me, I know that, hard though it would be, I would try to save the stranger. The stranger could be a rapist/axe murderer/pedophile, true, or they could be a beloved Mum, someone who volunteered with disadvantaged children or someone who, if they lived, would discover the cure for HIV in a couple of years time. As I doubt I'd have the time to ask them for their CV, I'd take the chance on rescuing a horrible person because they could be a nice person, loved by many and important to all their family and friends, like my family and friends are to me. No way I'd pick my pet over a human stranger, even though I'd be devastated to lose my pet. To be honest, whichever one I rescued, or if both drowned, I'd never forgive myself for not being strong/fast/smart enough to save both of them.

this is the kinda of question that scares me to answer. If i choose the human, i feel bad about my pet. and if i coose the pet, i feel bad about the human. It's kind of a ose-lose situation. there's no way to win. In real life, i'd try to save both, and probably kill myself in the process, because i am a terrible swimmer. However, if i absolutely had to choose, i think it would be the human.